South African Pharmacy Council's investigation into Lakefield Pharmacy continues after failed legal challenge

A pharmacist’s move to throw an inspector out of his pharmacy has backfired spectacularly.

Abram Ditonkana Sello, together with Potego Sello, failed in a High Court bid to halt disciplinary proceedings after the inspector was sent by the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) to investigate serious complaints - including that the pharmacy may have been operating without a registered pharmacist.

The case stems from Lakefield Pharmacy, owned and managed by the Sellos, following allegations of unprofessional conduct and regulatory lapses.

In March 2022, SAPC inspector David Bayever visited with a clear mandate: to “investigate whether the pharmacy is conducted without a pharmacist,” to “investigate whether the pharmacy is conducted by an unregistered and unqualified person,” and to “conduct a full monitoring inspection.”

The inspection, however, ended abruptly. Bayever reported that “Augustine P Sello phoned Abram Sello (his father) and after a lengthy discussion AP Sello told me that the instruction stands that I was to remove myself from the premises and not to continue with the inspection as instructed by the Responsible Pharmacist Abram Sello.”

The inspector was effectively ejected, a move that set off the disciplinary process.

A follow-up joint inspection by SAPC and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) downgraded Lakefield Pharmacy from an A-grade, indicating full compliance, to a C-grade, reflecting serious deficiencies.

The matter was then referred to SAPC’s Committee of Formal Inquiry, which conducts disciplinary hearings.

The Sellos argued they were denied procedural fairness. Their attorneys said: “In respect of the contents of the inspection report as well as the memorandum by Karsten, our client vehemently denies that the contents are factually correct.

"Had P Sello been invited to comment on the contents of the report shortly after Karsten conducted the inspection, Mr. Sello would have given substantive comments which would have been recorded to demonstrate why the inspection report is not in order.”

Judge Millar, however, found the review fatally flawed. It had been filed outside the 180-day period allowed under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), and no application for condonation was made.

“The failure to apply for condonation is fatal and for this reason the application must fail,” the judgment stated.

The court also ordered the Sellos to pay SAPC’s costs, including fees for two counsel, one of whom was senior, on scale C.

SAPC argued that extra precautions were reasonable given the potential impact of an adverse ruling.

The ruling highlights the high stakes of procedural compliance in administrative law.

While the disciplinary proceedings against the Sellos continue, their attempt to stop them has been conclusively dismissed, leaving the pharmacists to face the inquiry over the complaints that triggered the investigation—and the dramatic confrontation that followed.

IOL